Judith Viorst, author of the children's book Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, had nothing on 2020. By virtually every metric, 2020 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year.

Most states have some sort of catastrophe exemption for a property tax abatement or reduction tied to a defined disaster event. These statutes are state-specific, however, and few states had authority to address whether a property had to have sustained physical damage to qualify for catastrophe relief on property taxes.

Most states, including Texas, eventually concluded that some form of physical damage was necessary for property values to be reduced following a disaster. Its neighbor, Louisiana, went the other direction, concluding that its disaster statute did not require physical damage, only that the property be inoperable due to a declaration of emergency by the governor. Accordingly, property values for the 2020 tax year could be reduced in Louisiana due to COVID-19-related economic losses.

Pandemic paper trails

Fortunately, 2021 gives all taxpayers a fresh start. Most states use Jan. 1 as the "lien date," or valuation date for determining fair market value of property subject to ad valorem tax. For income-producing properties, taxpayers now have a full year's documentation of COVID-19 impacts, which more accurately demonstrate the fair market value of their properties in the current, COVID-19 economic climate. At a high level, such documentation may include financial statements with year-over-year and month-over-month comparison of revenues to expenses and profits to losses.

Drilling down, taxpayers should be able to demonstrate the source of these changing numbers, such as reduced employee hours, decreased production outputs and sales, unoccupied rooms, canceled conferences and the like. Comparable sales information should also now be available.

This information generally relates to economic obsolescence, which is a loss in value due to causes outside the property and which are not included in physical depreciation. Taxpayers also must consider whether their property exhibits functional obsolescence, or a loss in value due to the property's lack of utility or desirability.

Functionality is tied to a property's amenities, layout and current technology. A property's functional obsolescence is measured through reduced or impaired use. Taxpayers can quantify the lack of use in 2020 and compare it to pre-2020 capacity and usage in arguing for a reduction in taxable value.

Value and evolving utility

Historical information is key to the taxpayer's case — as is evidence of adaptation to current market trends. For instance, a year ago, who would have imagined that neighborhood and big-box stores of all stripes would start delivering their products directly to customers' homes? Suddenly, abundant check-out lanes, wide aisles, sampling stations and sprawling parking lots are unnecessary. Retailers would rather have drive-thru lanes and dedicated carryout parking.

Hotels have been similarly affected. Traditional amenities such as atriums, event space and intimate lounges that preclude safe social distancing are passé. Motels with open-air access are enjoying a renaissance. Resourceful restauranteurs have figured out how to make street-side dining desirable. Patios are now essential. While many of these changes in use are likely temporary, some are expected to be longer-lasting.

Consider commercial office space. Prior to the pandemic, many office-using employers permitted only limited remote work but working from home has now become the new normal. Facility planners expect the traditional office environment to shift to a hybrid model, with expanded remote working, office-sharing, and fewer in-person communications. Large conference rooms are out and state-of-the-art multimedia systems have taken their place.

These trends impact real estate values because they affect how property is used, or more importantly, not used. Commercial real estate developers will not be laying out offices the same way they used to, and hoteliers will not be building out the same large conference centers post-COVID. And the reality is that much existing buildout, furniture and equipment is going unused. So for now, a replacement cost analysis is the most appropriate valuation method for those property types, because it reflects the functionality of the property and the fact that the property would not be rebuilt as is.

Of course, as more and more businesses adapt to post-pandemic market trends, the lack of utilization may be deemed industrywide rather than property specific. At that point, appraisers should treat the lost value as economic obsolescence, which is value losses stemming from factors occurring outside the property. In either case, taxpayers should be prepared to demonstrate the inutility of their property, and the cost of such inutility, to reduce taxable value.

Better than terrible

Whether or not 2021 is radically better than last year, at least taxpayers are now in a better position to show the adverse impact the pandemic has had on fair market values. And if that translates to lower ad valorem tax liabilities, then this decade is off to a very good start.

The federal government has long encouraged owning a home over renting. Housing subsidies in the tax code effectively lower the after-tax cost of homeownership, which has helped taxpayers move out of residential rentals and into their own homes. The Jeffersons might not have credited tax policy for it in their 1970's sitcom, but it has assisted taxpayers in "moving up" to bigger and better homes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) makes sweeping changes to the tax code for individual taxpayers that directly impact their ability to transition from renting to owning their home.

About 34 million households, or 44 percent of U.S. homes, carry a mortgage with annual interest charges that exceeded the prior standard deduction. With the new standard deduction, that group shrinks to around 14 million, or 15 percent of U.S. households, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

And while the TCJA nearly doubles the standard deduction, it caps the deduction for state and local taxes -- including income, sales, and property taxes -- at $10,000 for both single and married taxpayers. This one-two punch could significantly impair some taxpayers' appetite for homeownership.

Two household examples

NAR prepared an analysis that illustrates this potential impact. In the first of two examples, a single taxpayer earns $58,000 per year, rents an apartment, and claims the standard deduction. Her tax liability for 2018 under the prior law would have been $7,491 but, under the TCJA, she pays just $6,060 and enjoys a tax cut in the amount of $1,431.

Now assume she purchases a home for $205,000, putting down 3.5 percent with a 30-year mortgage fixed at 4 percent interest. Further assume her first-year mortgage interest would total $7,856 and she would pay property taxes of $2,050.

As a first-time homeowner, her tax liability under the prior law would be $5,393. The tax benefits under the prior law save $2,098, which effectively lowers her monthly mortgage payment by $175 per month. Under the TCJA, her tax would be $5,423 (a $30 increase!) and the differential between renting and owning a home, which was $2,098 under the prior law, has shrunk to just $637 or $53 per month.

In the second NAR example, a married couple with three children and an annual household income of $120,000 leases a home and takes the standard deduction. Their tax liability for 2018 under the prior law would have been $11,370 but, under the TCJA, they pay $8,999 and enjoy a tax cut in the amount of $2,371.

Now assume they purchase a home for $425,000, putting down 10 percent with a 30-year, fixed rate mortgage at 4 percent interest. Further assume their first-year mortgage interest would total $15,189 and they would pay property taxes of $4,250.

Under the prior law, the couple would lower their tax liability for 2018 by $3,219 by purchasing a home instead of renting. This amount effectively lowers their monthly mortgage payment by over $268 per month. Under the TCJA, their tax would be $8,051 (a $100 decrease) and the differential between renting and owning a home, which was $3,219 under the prior law, has shrunk to just $948 or $79 per month. (For NAR's analysis and further discussion of Apartment Lists' examples, visit https://www.nar.realtor/tax-reform/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-what-it-means-for-homeowners-and-real-estate-professionals.)

As these examples illustrate, the TCJA offers an incentive to homeownership, but it is considerably less valuable than the previous incentive. Thiseffectively levels the playing field between renting and owning a residence. In fact, after accounting for additional costs associated with homeownership such as maintenance, neighborhood association dues and local district fees, the scales may now tip in favor of renting.

Thus, taxpayers may forego the traditional path, and choose not to move up from renting to purchasing a home. Instead, they may choose to climb within the rental market. That is, they may move to bigger and better residences and may spend more on their residences , but they are likely to rent rather than buy.

At the same time, the TCJA is fueling investors' interest in the rental market so that more options will likely be available for taxpayers who forego owning a home in favor of renting. To that end, the TCJA offers more favorable treatment of pass-through income. And, income property owners are still able to deduct interest payments on mortgages, with no cap.

These factors make it more profitable for investors to own income-generating property such as multifamily apartments or single family rentals. So, while the TCJA may increase taxpayer demand for renting homes, it also encourages investors to invest in residential properties and make bigger and better rental units available to renters. Whether by accident or design, the TCJA is likely to result in significant benefits to the rental market.

Passage of a new ballot initiative will confirm exemption of partially completed property from taxation."

Any taxpayer planning to develop a new property must consider how local taxing entities will treat the project during construction, but the question is especially important in evaluating and comparing overall costs of potential development locations during an industrial site search.

States generally recognize Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) as property that is in the process of changing from one state to another, such as the conversion of machinery, construction materials and other personal property from inventory into an asset or fixture by installation, assembly or construction. There is no clear consensus among taxing jurisdictions as to whether (or how) a tax assessor should value such par­tially completed construction on the applicable assessment date.

Many states including Alabama, Missouri and North Carolina value CWIP based on the value or percentage of completion on the assessment date. Kansas values incomplete construction based on the cost incurred as of the assessment date. Florida, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia assess CWIP when the work has progressed to a degree that it is useful for its eventual purpose. And in South Carolina, improvements are only assessed upon completion.

With the exception of a few errant assessments in the early 1930s, Louisiana has never assessed partially completed construction for property tax purposes. Rather, taxing jurisdictions assess and add the completed property to tax rolls as of January 1 of the year immediately following completion of construction. This complements Louisiana's industrial tax exemption program, which exempts certain manufacturing property from ad valorem taxation for a specified number of years.

Unfortunately, properties on which ad valorem taxes have been paid are ineligible for participation in the exemption program. Thus, if a taxpayer has paid taxes on a project as partially completed construction, the property is no longer eligible for the industrial tax exemption and remains on the taxable rolls, subject to assessment each year. Obviously, assessing projects with partially finished construction in this manner would significantly diminish the value of the exemption pro­gram to taxpayers and undermine its usefulness to economic develop­ment agencies as an incentive tool.

In 2016, a local assessor broke with established practice and initiated an audit that included construction work in progress on a major industrial taxpayer. This audit raised statewide and local uniformity concerns over the assessment of a single taxpayer's partially completed construction in a single parish, and jeopardized the taxpayer's existing industrial tax exemption.

The taxpayer immediately filed an injunction action in district court, and the Louisiana Legislature took up the situation during its regular 2017 legislative session. Recognizing the need to formalize the exemption, the Legislature referred to voters a constitutional amendment that would codify the exemption of construction work in progress from assessment. Louisiana is one of 16 states that require a two-thirds supermajority in each chamber of the Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot, so their vote underscores the strong support among lawmakers to codify the exemption.

Act 428 would add a subsection to Article VII, Section 21 of the Louisiana Constitution, which lists property that is exempt from ad valorem tax assessment. The new provision would exempt from ad valorem tax all property delivered to a construction project site for the purpose of incorporating the property into any tract of land, building or other construction as a component part. This exemption would apply until the construction project is completed (i.e. occupied and used for its in­tended purpose).

The exemption would not apply to (1) any portion of a construction project that is complete, available for its intended use, or operational on the date that property is assessed; (2) for projects constructed in two or more distinct phases, any phase of the construction project that is complete, available for its intended use or operational on the date the property is assessed; (3) certain public service property.

If voters approve the ballot item, CWIP will be exempt from property taxes until construction is "completed." The proposed amendment defines a completed construction as occurring when the property "can be used or occupied for its intended purpose." The exemption would thus remain effective until the construction project or given construc­tion phases of the project are ready to be used or occupied.

A constitutional amendment does not require action by the Governor. This constitutional amendment will be placed on the ballot at the state­wide election to be held on Oct. 14, 2017.